Bismarck weekly tribune., 1887-08-26
SETTLER VS.. r. r.
George w. Darland's Case in the U.
S. Land Office-Land in the
Indemnity Limit.
1t Turns Upon the Validity of the
Railroad SelectiOn-Land
AdjOins WinOna,
The First Clash.

George w. Darland, the claimant as
pre-emptor to the seA of section s, town
ship 1S0, range 70, adjoining the townsite
of Winona, and held by the Winona town.
site company under deed from the North
ern Pacific railroad company, and yester-
day under cross examination at the United
States land office upon his final proof SUBJ
mitted the day before, was the mail con-
tractor between Bismarck and Pierre in
1888 and 1884. The latter year the glanders
broke out among his horses and ny order
of Colonel Gilbert of Fort Yates seventy
four of them were killed. This loss broke
Mr.. Darland, and with the fines for nom
delivery of mails, and cancellation of his
mail contract, he was left in bad shape.
Colonel Gilbert told him to make out his
bill and send into the government through
him. He did but has never heard from it,
and in all probability never will. Gilbert's
authority in the premises are doubtful.
This sorry incident, probably, started Mr..
Darland on his career as q settler and
finally brought him iu conflict with the
protestants, the Northern Pacific railroad
company and Winona Townsite company,
as evidenced by the records of the United
States la land office and the hearing yesterday.
At this hearing F; 3. Register appeared
for claimant, General Hughes for the rail-
road company and O. F. Davis for the
tOwnsite company. Darland alleges settle
ment in June 1884 by the act Of cleaning
out spring that took him two days and
that he moved on to the land to live in
June OF the following year, 1885.
1,,ol o<
cluding a frame house 16x24 feet frame
stable and twenty.fOur acres of breaking
The railroad company, January 8, 1885, Sc
lected the land in dispute, and thereby be-
came an adverse claimant The adverse
claimants in their protests allege that Oar
lands filing was made in bad faith and for
the purpose OF extorting money; that it is
illegal because not made within three
months after the plat was filed; that Dar-
land did not settle there as alleged by him
in June, 1884; that this land (part OF the
ten-mile indemnity limit) was Withdrawn
by the secretary Of interior May 26. 1878,
from settlement; that it was and is part
OF toWnsite used for the purposes of
trade and business.
In claimants crOss-eXaminatiOn he ex-
planned that he abandoned his spring i'm
provement in the fall OF 1884, went on to
southeast quarter OF section eight near by,
and then gave up. that when he found
there were several other claimants: in
June, 1885, he went back to the southeast
quarter of five and has resided there ever
since. Claimants cross. examination prac-
tically closed the case, the testimony of
other witnesses examined being imma-
terial. The case was taken under advise
ment by. the register and receiver. The
point at issue seems to be the validity Of
the unapproved selection made by the rail-
road company January, 1885. If that Sc
lection is not good, and Secretary Lamar's
recent decision seems to say so, the award
of the government officers will favor the
settler. Was the settler barred by the rail
withdrawal, dating back to 1858, operate to
defeat legal settlement? This is the first
gun in the ten-mle indemnity limit.